tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post112336284747564172..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Emotional roots for hypocrisies of BOTH left and right...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1124411277523928742005-08-18T17:27:00.000-07:002005-08-18T17:27:00.000-07:00What do I believe in?Footnotes, citations, referen...What do I believe in?<BR/><BR/>Footnotes, citations, references -- and checking them. <BR/><BR/>Don't you? It's good exercise.<BR/><BR/>From the above article, follow the references before typing the unfootnoted assertion that you believe there's no problem.<BR/><BR/>No, really, first, read the footnotes and follow them. <BR/><BR/>Find the article from which I clipped this by following up the footnotes (it'll take you three or four minutes, if you read at an average rate).<BR/><BR/>Note the graphic that precedes it.<BR/><BR/>If it doesn't make you consider the possibility that you may be wrong, then God bless you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>%<--- snipped >%------<BR/>"... Seven of fifty states have t values less than –2.7, meaning that each of them had less than 1% probability of having the reported difference between exit polls and election results occurring by chance. The binomial probability that 7 of 50 should be so kewed is less than one in 10,000,000. A full comparison of the exit<BR/>polls with the null distribution (blue curve) via a Shapiro-Wilk test yields a probability that is astronomically small.<BR/>The visual plot suggests a model for the result that may be useful in further investigation: Aside from three<BR/>outlier states (on the left) the data appear to be normally distributed with a mean shifted 1.0 standard deviations toward Kerry. The data without these three passes the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality (p=.4), with a shifted mean. Two hypotheses to explore are that (2) the exit polls were subject to a consistent bias<BR/>of unknown origin; or (3) the official vote count was corrupted."Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1124410025530019882005-08-18T17:07:00.000-07:002005-08-18T17:07:00.000-07:00"In order to believe that George Bush won the Nove..."In order to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.(1)..."<BR/><BR/>http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.htmlHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123968958473788312005-08-13T14:35:00.000-07:002005-08-13T14:35:00.000-07:00Here's a scenario: John McCain and John Edwards b...Here's a scenario: John McCain and John Edwards both announce disgust with their respective parties, and announce that they are forming a new party. They'll need a strong group of web people to help start up the grass roots end of things, and some big money backers for start-up (disturbingly like venture capitalists). They announce that there will be NO position taken on abortion and similar baby-with-the-bathwater issues.<BR/>Hopefully they will attract other middle-of-the-road politicians, and all those sick and tired of single-minded rhetoric. <BR/>Let's say they win. Yay!<BR/>Now we have three parties. The new one in the middle, and each of the old ones on either side. Eventually, one side or the other will dwindle down to nothing, and the moderate party will drift in that direction to fill the void. The party on the other extreme will tone down it's own rhetoric, drifting back towards the middle itself as it grows again. Eventually the new party will be over to one side and the surviving old party on the other.<BR/><BR/>Ahh, lovely thought, yes? <BR/>Of course, it's a cop-out. A fantasy to help avoid thinking about the hard, nasty work that's going to be needed to wrest control from the extremists. Work that includes lots of arguing over things like the definition and usage of "feudalism", because regardless of who's right in this matter, while you're typing out "feudalism" you're <I>thinking</I> "people". (Or, you should be - as many extremists on both sides show, people are often the last thing considered in social debates).<BR/><BR/>Personally, on my gloomier days I think that the country probably wont do anything about any of the current mess untill it gets really, <I>really</I> messy. It's been almost two hundred years since anyone tried to take away our stuff, and if that truly is the plan of the neo-cons most Americans wont recognise it until they start feeling a strong breeze around the nether regions.<BR/><BR/>-dcc-<BR/><BR/>oh, and anonymous, I think you're wrong, but if Dr. Brin <I>wants</I> to rant and rave, well, it <I>is <B>his</B></I> blog.daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123915731324118262005-08-12T23:48:00.001-07:002005-08-12T23:48:00.001-07:00And he can't even spell hypocrisies.And he can't even spell hypocrisies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123915682955024282005-08-12T23:48:00.000-07:002005-08-12T23:48:00.000-07:00What a dickwad David Brin has become. By which I o...What a dickwad David Brin has become. By which I only mean it's gotten worse lately. <BR/><BR/>Won't research, doesn't care about facts, ignored very real distinctions, and lectures people on learning the duties of a good host, which apparently means convincing themselves he's being a good host when he's mocking you, ridiculing you, and twisting your argument, because it vaguely threatens his own ill-founded one. <BR/><BR/>It's not even angering, it's just pathetic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123914071784179972005-08-12T23:21:00.000-07:002005-08-12T23:21:00.000-07:00Re the libertarian party, see: http://www.davidbri...Re the libertarian party, see: http://www.davidbrin.com/libertarianarticle1.html<BR/><BR/>I consider myself one of them... at one level. Enough to have been a keynote speaker at an LP national convention!<BR/><BR/>But they proved their uselessness in 2004, when they failed to rescue their country by the simple act of doing to W what Nader had done to Gore.<BR/><BR/>I mean, what the #$@#$ use are they? <BR/><BR/>Try taking the "questionnaire on ideology" at http://www.davidbrin.com/questionnaire.html<BR/><BR/>Libertarians generally answer is ways that show extremely modernist attitudes <B>at the surface!</B> But underneath, more than half of them show all the hallmarks of religious fanatics, holding fast to romantic excuses for nostalgia, extremism, strawmaning all opponents and apocalyptic redemptionism.<BR/><BR/>There ARE many libertarians trying to change this... and even some discussions about how. But it will be a microcosm of the culture war wracking America today. Fanatics and incrementalist pragmatists, fighting over the soul of every movement, a battle far more important than any difference over left and right.<BR/><BR/>For now, there is only one major institution in America whose modernists still hold a balance of influence. That is the Democratic Party... and there only by the slenderest of margins.<BR/><BR/>I am not saying be a democrat. Just pray they can hold while you fight for sanity in WHATEVER movement you prefer. Right now, I'd take Teddy Roosevelt or Ike over any politician currently on the horizon.<BR/><BR/>Oh, the article you referred to is at:<BR/>http://www.davidbrin.com/realculturewar1.html<BR/><BR/>I''l be talking about it soon.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123880044954674232005-08-12T13:54:00.000-07:002005-08-12T13:54:00.000-07:00Regarding the battle against anti-modernist politi...Regarding the battle against anti-modernist politicians, David had an interesting proposition on his main site: Look to the primary elections if that's where the winnable fight is. Specifically, in solidly Republican or Democratic districts where the general election's outcome is foreordained, <I>register with the dominant party</I> so that if there is a moderate (or even merely a maverick) to be found in the primary's field of candidates, your vote can go to that candidate. <BR/><BR/>Of the other fronts the "Culture War" is being fought on, I think the one to be most concerned about is the educational system. It's currently ground zero for the cultural/religious conservative movement (and to be fair, the "left" has been guilty of its own cultural tinkering with the schools). In fact, just about everyone with a cause has paraded it before a local school board or the education committees of their state legislatures at one time or another.<BR/><BR/>Yet in many areas of the country (my own definitely included), the educational apparatus is the political arena most ignored by the general electorate. That has to change. We have to ensure that the schools' focus be kept on the dissemination of verifiable skills and knowledge. (ID need not apply — it assumes, with no justification, a theistic answer to the question "Was the universe planned?")<BR/><BR/>Ironically, President Bush may have laid the foundation for this with his oft-maligned "Leave No Child Behind" initiative — what if that were <I>expanded</I> beyond math and reading to setting basic standards for education in the physical and social sciences as well?<BR/><BR/>As far as "morals education" goes, I think <I>all</I> the extremists have to be told, "Hands off the schools!" We needn't teach <I>either</I> the Ten Commandments or Political Correctness when we already have a thorough code of behavior to teach our students: the laws of our land — and the concomitant lessons on <I>why</I> these are the laws of our land.<BR/><BR/>All we really need is, well ... organization. All power to Jacare's Concord Party and similar efforts to unite modernists/moderates/compromisers/whatever — but the pessimist in me recalls my attempts years ago to search the Web for "centrist" movements. (Sorry, David; your post didn't pop up here until I was proofing mine.) What my searches found was a collection of dead links and outdated and apparently abandoned sites. (Anybody here know someone whose pockets are as deep as Perot's but whose need for medication isn't as great? I think the problem with centrist parties isn't that they lack appeal but that it takes forever to gain attention and influence when you start with none.)<BR/><BR/>P.S.: I hope I've clarified that I don't think "scholarly" is a swear word; scholarship is what we <I>need</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123877437114774692005-08-12T13:10:00.000-07:002005-08-12T13:10:00.000-07:00These are good comments.1. I think it's vital to s...These are good comments.<BR/><BR/>1. I think it's vital to split the left into those parts that are "liberals" -> modernists who happen to believe in pro-active self-improvement campaigns that include some state aid... from the antimodernist elements of the left.<BR/><BR/>Only then will we be able to ATTRACT the pro-modernist elements on the right... persuading them perhaps to save their country by doing what the AFL did in 1945... denouncing their own lunatics.<BR/><BR/>I don't like the words Centrist Alliance because it implies modernists are tepid compared to passionate believers of left and right. SUch terms will be applied inevitably, but we must show that modernism is radical in its own way.<BR/><BR/>Your distinctions among styles of pyramidalism e.g feudalism are fine. But don't be upset when we use feudalism generically. It is important in an era when feudal fantasies out sell sci fi 3 to 1.<BR/><BR/>brrrrrDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123851675840496822005-08-12T06:01:00.000-07:002005-08-12T06:01:00.000-07:00Re: finn de siecle and WhiskeyFirst off, it seems ...Re: finn de siecle and Whiskey<BR/><BR/>First off, it seems I was bit cranky the other afternoon and responded to finn's post with misplaced<BR/>passion. Seems I misplaced my sense of humor as well. Only temporarily I hope.<BR/><BR/>You ask for practical suggestions. I too am looking for them. That's why I started visting this blog several<BR/>months ago. I have a few ideas of my own. You can judge their applicability for yourself. <BR/><BR/>One of these ideas is that it will be very difficult to find a way out of our current predicament if we don't share a common language. As a polity, we do not at present possess one. Our discourse in every sphere of public life has fragmented into dozens of insular dialects, reflecting the increasing balkanization of our social life. The meaning of words shifts depending on who is speaking. The word freedom itself has an entirely different meaning in the mouth of a Pat Robertson than it would have in my own. It is impossible to articulate a common interest if words have no common meaning.<BR/><BR/>Hopefully this explains why I gave in to a fit of pique over the loose use language.<BR/><BR/>Let me see if I can give a more concrete illustration. Say I read an article using the word Feudalism in a fashion that makes no sense given the word's actual meaning. Likely, I will decide the writer doesn't know<BR/>what he or she is talking about and treat the substance of the article accordingly. Say I don't know the<BR/>meaning of the word. In that case I would probably look it up and draw the same conclusion. In either<BR/>instance the result will be counter productive. This is an immediate, practical objection to so expansive a use of the word.<BR/><BR/>A second immediate, practical but more profound objection is that it is a false comparison. Describing all heirarchical societies as feudal is exactly as sensible as equating Bush to Hitler or saying that there is no difference between thermal power, hydro power and nuclear power. Of course there are points of<BR/>comparison but that does not make them synonymous.<BR/><BR/>Having already been gently chided for my pedantic tendencies, I'm not going to bore you with a listing of<BR/>the profound differences between the various social systems that you would lump together. I will observe<BR/>that if an abstract pyramid is one's lodestar for analyzing social systems, Feudalism is an extremely poor choice for discriptive purposes.<BR/><BR/>There seems to be a notion at work here that Feudalism constituted a highly centralized system. Nothing<BR/>could be further from the truth. Feudalism was probably the most decentralized social form imaginable<BR/>without dispensing with a Monarch all together. Rome, even during the most anarchic periods of the<BR/>Republic, was more centralized than Feudalism. (Uh oh, seems I'm being "scholarly" again.)<BR/><BR/>Why is any of this important? Well, while the mundane, tedious details of how these systems actually<BR/>operated may seem minor when one's eye is on the pyramidic "big picture", these niggling, irritating details were of vital importance to how the broad mass of people actually lived.<BR/><BR/>If we are going to be developing and proposing nostrums for our own society, I don't think it wise to begin by ignoring how the great mass of people experience society. Nor should we exclude people by employing a dialect accessable only to those "in the know".<BR/><BR/>Obviously, if we are going to create a consensus for active and effective opposition to the anti-modernist(<BR/>some would say reactionary) wave, we need to avoid divisive rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>Another suggestion that I conceive to be practical. I think the political dimension is, in some ways the easiest to analyze. The indicated actions are fairly clear.<BR/><BR/>The ruling party has welcomed within it's coalition a mass constituency/movement dedicated, as others before it, to a program of social reform based on religious principals. Over three decades this movement has evolved into a specifically theocratic force espousing the usual "fundamentalism of convenience" dogma.<BR/><BR/>Through its alliance with the GOP, this movement now finds itself with an entre into all three branches of<BR/>the Federal Government. They are exercising their influence.<BR/><BR/>At present there is no counterbalancing force to this movement. Obviously one needs to be built.<BR/><BR/>Easy to say. It's the simple thing so difficult to achieve.<BR/><BR/>A first step would be to take stock of what allies are available for such action. The elements of the left, whatever their other failings, are already active on this front. Alone they lack sufficient strength to defeat the Theocrats. The only question is whether moderates and conservatives who oppose the Theocratic agenda are willing to enter into joint action with them.<BR/><BR/>The root of the difficulty lies in the reasons why the Theocrats were made welcome in the GOP in the first<BR/>place. For the last 20 years the nominally secular moderates and conservatives in the GOP coalition have had no problem with the Theocrats presence because it helped them win elections. Now the bill has come due on this devil's bargain. These so-called "social conservatives" are no longer going to accept payment in purely symbolic gestures.<BR/><BR/>We will now find out exactly how strong a commitment to secular society the moderates and conservatives possess. People who wish to blunt the political spearpoint of anti-modernism need to focus on giving these two groups the proper encouragement. The only way to halt the political drive of anti-modernism is to defeat it politically. Politicians and parties who pander to this movement must be made to suffer for it.<BR/><BR/>These are certainly not the only things to be done. They are, I think, the areas demanding immediate action. Otherwise, we can only look forward to continued retreat before the forces of irrationality.<BR/><BR/>There you have some of my ideas and suggestions. What do you think?W.B. Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11501942097348818813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123807315340916082005-08-11T17:41:00.000-07:002005-08-11T17:41:00.000-07:00If you refuse political diamondness, then consider...If you refuse political diamondness, then consider economic diamondness... which did NOT exist in Athens then.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I have always considered Periclean Athens to be the great glimmer of hope in 4,000 years of darkness. Read the speeches of Pericles. The platonists spent 3,000 years dissing him in terror of his dream. If you insist that his Athens was special... well, I ain't gonna argue.<BR/><BR/>Alas, it was wrecked by bright fools almost identical to the neocons now ruling us....David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123801784786651792005-08-11T16:09:00.000-07:002005-08-11T16:09:00.000-07:00sayethe whiskey1 "By the fifth century B.C., howev...sayethe whiskey1 "By the fifth century B.C., however, the number of slaves in some city-states had grown to as much as one-third of the total population." -> " Large, yes, but not larger than the citizen class. So there is a slave class, a LARGER middle class, and a very small elite class... its a diamond. Not a pyramid. So for a time, that society is a counterexample."<BR/><BR/>Um, sorry, Whiskey1, but this is 100% and diametrically opposite to fact. Helots vastly outnumbered Spartan citizens. Even in Athens, there are vastly more people who were slaves, foreigners, indentured servants, landless freemen... oh, and women... than the very small number who were allowed to join the Assembly. The Golden Age of Athens WAS impressive! Maybe SEVEN PERCENT of the people could vote! Moreover, Pericles spoke (for the 1st time) of the DREAM of a diamond society. One more reason that Plato so hated him.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123739906736006262005-08-10T22:58:00.000-07:002005-08-10T22:58:00.000-07:00David Brin said... "Leftists tend to romanticize t...<I>David Brin said... <BR/>"Leftists tend to romanticize tribalism and the rightists feudalism."<BR/>Dang, that's gooood. Can I use it?</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely. I'm surely not going to; I'm an editor, not a writer (my vanity Web site notwithstanding; that's almost <I>de rigueur</I> these days).<BR/><BR/><I>W.B. Reeves said... <BR/>There is some serious confusion — conceptual, historical and terminological — occurring here....<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Undoubtedly, especially on the "historical and terminological" fronts. I'm not a historian, nor even a serious student, and should have made that clearer in my previous post.<BR/><BR/>But I wasn't intending to "equate" tribalism with feudalism so much as point out that both are expressions of human societies' hierarchical tendencies. They're certainly different in nature as well as size — but some analogies can be made between the two. What I was trying to say was more along the lines of "One is an expression of the tendency toward hierarchy more appropriate to small, limited societies; the other is an expression of that same tendency at the level of the state/nation."<BR/><BR/>(And while I can't speak for the rest of the posters here, it's my impression that most who cited "feudalism" were, like me, using it as shorthand for any hierarchical societal structure with resemblances to the Middle Ages European system that properly goes by that name. What would be a good alternative for a general term?)<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to defend the armies/democracy argument; as I said, it wasn't mine to start with, and I don't recall enough of the essay to know how the author backed the premise. (But did the Magna Carta or Cromwell's interregnum empower anyone who didn't have access to power already, or simply shift power out of the hands of a monarchy and into other political entities' hands? I don't think the "common man" saw much difference until much later, after the principles of the Enlightenment had had time to be fully absorbed into Western thought.)<BR/><BR/><I>Reducing the theory of natural selection to "survival of the stupendous badasses" is a grotesque caricature.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is, and it was done deliberately by Stephenson, and quoted by me, for humorous purposes. (Sorry, I guess it didn't work out in my case. But I'd recommend you read Stephenson's novel anyway; <I>he</I> usually does his history homework, even if I haven't.) I certainly don't think competition is the sole or major driving force in natural selection in general; but it certainly plays an important role for primates (and a number of nonprimate species as well). And I definitely don't think aristocracy is a good strategy for natural selection, if only because of the infamous effects of all that inbreeding.<BR/><BR/>And as for the Medieval wars, certainly they took their toll on the fighting class. But the noncombatant peasantry weren't necessarily out of the fray; sometimes they were targets, especially in a couple of the religious wars and the transcontinental ones (e.g., the Mongol invasion), which would qualify today as genocides. And certainly the lowest classes had the least access to the resources necessary for a long- and healthy-enough life to ensure the survival of their genetic lines. That those lines survived (and eventually thrived) anyway, while those of the nobility began to peter out, certainly points out the stupidity of feudalism as a long-term survival strategy. But who'd've ever convinced a Medieval duke of that? (And how can we persuade a neocon to give up his/her modern-day version of elitism?)<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to...<BR/><BR/><I>I agree that we must find ways to cut through the partisan rhetorical fog if we are to have hope for the future. Sadly, I don't believe this can be accomplished by withdrawing from current debates however degraded we may find them to be.</I><BR/><BR/>Depends. Are you talking about the tribalism/feudalism debate running through this thread, the one we're currently skirmishing at the fringes of? If so, I have to disagree. I thought your reply was scholarly and informative, but it didn't suggest to me any actual <I>tools</I> for combating the modern-day drift back toward a "pyramidalism" that could be the ruin of our own society. My original point, and the one I'm sticking with, is that (at least for the purposes that David has discussed on this blog) it's less important to debate the specifics of which peoples used which hierarchical systems in which eras than it is to debate ways to reinforce the system that benefits the greatest number of people today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123734956809151852005-08-10T21:35:00.000-07:002005-08-10T21:35:00.000-07:00Reading Steve's comment about the extremism of the...Reading Steve's comment about the extremism of the political parties reminded me of my own thoughts recently while reading reading Christine Todd Whitman's book "It's My Party, Too". As I read her complaints about the hijacking of the Republican Party, I kept wanting to ask her "why do you stay?" It seems pretty clear that moderates in both parties are being left out in the cold by their own, but are afraid to relenquish even their curtailed power. Perhaps it's time for the formation of a new political party, made up not of outsiders but of moderate heavyweights from both sides of the aisle. I wish Jacare the best with his own new party, but unless he's got some really big "bipartisan" players he hasnt got much chance of being anything more than marginal. Maybe the new party could take a page from Dr. Brin's book and call themselves the Modernist Party.daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123731120255400392005-08-10T20:32:00.000-07:002005-08-10T20:32:00.000-07:00David, again about the left - every fundamental po...David, again about the left - every fundamental political denomination is conceptually problematic, and increasingly so as it loses sight of its foundation. It’s true there are dogmatic portions of the left, there’s romantic leftism, and esp. in the U.S. there is even religious leftism. And then of course there is the pseudo-Stalinist communism-gone-to-seed of Eastern Europe and China that refuses to die. I agree that a useful, modern progressive movement should not necessarily call itself “left”. The rhetoric of the left no longer animates people. <BR/><BR/>And frankly, in the U.S. the left is so maligned and slandered that not even the most penetrating intellectuals dare go further to the left than the anarchism of a Noam Chomsky. I myself was a Marxist revolutionary for a while, though I have since become a pacifist reformist. But through it all I have increasingly approached what I call the true left, and I believe that strong leftist movements will return, and once again animate people. I also realize, however, that this will not be a good thing unless properly tempered by seriously updated basic theories of social development and how to affect it in progressive directions.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I am not ready to throw out the word “left” just yet, although I certainly remain open to an alternative and very possibly better terminology (but I don’t think one exists yet). I still think that the sense of social justice and compassion for all humanity is best accommodated by delving into the fundamental ideology of the left, although one has to be able to apply to it the new developments of the last century and a half, which unfortunately most movements on the left are unable to, which is the whole problem.<BR/><BR/>As with religion and other ideologies, most adherents only understand some unchanging version of it, which they regard as gospel or Truth, and in part this is because they realize that they themselves are not smart enough to take the theory further. So it’s really all up to those of us who think we are! ;-) Unfortunately, I know from bitter experience that the die-hard adherents of the twisted versions of the ideology are all too happy to reject any notion that anybody could possibly revise or re-interpret the foundational axioms... So all right, while inspired by it, I am not part of the traditional left - and I can’t call it the New Left, either... but for now I *will* call it the true left - until I find a better term.<BR/><BR/>P.S. to whiskey1 re Ancient Athens: My history teacher in the college course on Ancient Greece agreed with me when I characterized the social system as urbanized feudalism...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123717196420060182005-08-10T16:39:00.000-07:002005-08-10T16:39:00.000-07:00I am not sure if w.b. reeves was referring to my p...I am not sure if w.b. reeves was referring to my post in regards to natural selection to sociological phenomena. So just to clarify: <BR/><BR/>My post is not making too much of an analogy between natural selection and political selection. I am only using the tautological "the ones that survive (in this case the political process) are the ones that remain and flourish (in this case the political process)." This is quite distinct from natural selection. I can see how what I wrote suggested otherwise, which was not my intention.<BR/><BR/>Thus, if both sides destroy the middle as "compromisers" (an hypothesis) all that is left are the extremes, Q.E.D., and the extremes get more extreme as they continue to eat their own young (figurtively speaking). I think there is even a feeling that you have to rant on the extreme so that you can be heard and then negotiate to where you wanted to end up. Reagan was a master at this - compare the "Evil Empire" rhetoric to the nuclear reductions he supported. I do however think this way of thinking is dangerous in what is supposed to be a democracy (or even a republic).<BR/><BR/>Note that G.W. Bush does not seem very good at being extreme to negotiate to his advantage. He usually seems to be a true idealogue with whom there can not be a compromise. Consider: withdrawing from the ABM treaty, new nuclear weapon development, Missle Defence, the war in Iraq, tax cuts to solve the deficit, not talking to North Korea, etc. To me these are all policies that reflect ideology at the expense of reality. Every once in a while reality smacks the Administration in the face and they end up taking a position that they ridiculed a few months before (e.g. <A HREF="http://www.nysun.com/article/17848" REL="nofollow">"The war formerly known as the War on Terror" now known as the "global struggle against violent extremism"</A>, publicizing troop reduction plans, bilateral talks with North Korea, supporting Europe negotiating with Iran regarding uranium enrichment, etc.) But this only highlights that the Administration takes an ideological stand first and foremost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123713940743660272005-08-10T15:45:00.000-07:002005-08-10T15:45:00.000-07:00There is some serious confusion conceptual, histor...There is some serious confusion conceptual, historical and terminological occuring here.<BR/><BR/>Reducing the theory of natural selection to "survival of the stupendous badasses" is a grotesque caricature. Some the most "stupendous badasses" the world has seen were the dinosaurs. Where are they now? By contrast, one of the great evolutionary success stories is the cockroach.<BR/><BR/>The error here lies in conflating the concept of competition in the context of natural selection with the modern sociological content of the word, including all the unspoken presumptions as to what constitutes "fitness". In natural selection, the most successful competitor is often not the biggest and badest. To the contrary, it is the most adaptive. What is maladaptive in one set of circumstances may be highly adaptive in another.<BR/><BR/>Clearly Feudalism as a term is being <BR/>abused here. The word is of relatively modern provenence, having been coined in the 17th century specifically to describe the system of social, political and economic relations that held sway in medieval Europe. Applying it to every society above a tribal level stretches the term so far as to render it meaningless. It would require us to claim that there is no appreciable distinction between the Empire of Charlemagne and the Empire of Caesar Augustus. An evident absurdity.<BR/><BR/>As for equating tribalism with feudalism, you would be hard put to find any historian who would accept this proposition. I would like to hear a reasoned argument for this view rather than bald assertion.<BR/><BR/>I'm not familiar with the argument that Democracy was the result of the rise of national, as opposed to essentially professional, mercenary, armies. As presented here it appears quite shaky on its face. <BR/><BR/>There was no national conscript army in England prior to the English Civil War. Yet that revolution beheaded a Monarch and established the supremacy of Parliament. Far from being the product of the rise of modern Armies, the consensus is that Cromwell's New Model Army was the precursor of such. The appearance of the modern national army is traditionally dated to the First French Republic, yet another revolution that shortened the Monarch in favor of a national assembly.<BR/><BR/>All that to the side, how do events such as the Magna Carta, Wat Tyler's rebellion, the movement lead by John of Leyden and the Peasant Wars fit into this narrative?<BR/><BR/>While on the subjects of natural selection and Feudalism, I'd like to pose a query. Since the ruling castes of the Medieval period were almost constantly occupied by warfare, slaying and being slain with regularity, while the peasantry remain on the land dividing its time between agriculture and procreation, which group had the more effective strategy for insuring the survival of its genetic line?<BR/><BR/>I agree that we must find ways to cut through the partisan rhetorical fog if we are to have hope for the future. Sadly, I don't believe this can be accomplished by withdrawing from current debates however degraded we may find them to be. Instead, I think we most approach them with surgical precision and resolve. Not a cheerful prospect I admit.W.B. Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11501942097348818813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123712585095638952005-08-10T15:23:00.000-07:002005-08-10T15:23:00.000-07:00Whiskey one..."Ancient Athens. Not Feudal, but had...Whiskey one...<BR/>"Ancient Athens. Not Feudal, but had agriculture and metallurgy."<BR/><BR/>Athens had a small ruling class, a larger class of 2nd class citizens, and a enourmous slave class. Pyramid structure. Not Feudal, to be sure, but certainly not egaltarian... membership in the ruling class was hereditary, with almost zero chance of promotion from the slave class to the top... for that matter, a very slim chance of promotion from the 2nd class status to the top.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123710293444462842005-08-10T14:44:00.000-07:002005-08-10T14:44:00.000-07:00I'd like to add a different component to the discu...I'd like to add a different component to the discussion, if I may. This is something I have been thinking about for a while and end up depressing myself, so I thought I'd share with you! :)<BR/><BR/>The original post was about hypocrisies of both the "left" and "right" and the dogmas therefrom. Consider this: perhaps the dogmas persist because if you only have two sides to an issue, any compromise is seen as weakness, and the "perpetrators" of compromise are savaged by their own, thus selecting for blind ideologues. If we picture US politics as an evolutionary system, compromisers are not fit for the environment. We see this on both sides. Recently Sen. Frist (not a partucularly Enlightened individual) took a position that most Americans support regarding stem cells and was savaged more by his "own" side than by anyone else. The same goes for people on the left who maybe take a middle road on abortion and say, "Yes, the number of abortions should be reduced," a sentiment most people agree with. They get savaged by the left side. The phrase in both camps is something about a "slippery slope." I guess I picture in my mind a slippery slope on both the left and right leading to a bowl-shaped area of moderates and common ground in the middle. Neither the left nor right increase their "political fit-ness" by finding this common ground, and have everything to gain by polarization and ideology. If you follow this logic long enough, we see the end of the Enlightenment since one or the other side will "win" by completely demonizing the other side and controlling media, or a "red vs. blue" civil war of ideology. Perhaps not one of guns and artillery, but an internecine and dirty one nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>I mean, think of it. Anything that comes up, there are far lefts on one extreme and far rights on the other. Rarely is there an agreement on anything. Is this a real acknowledgement of a binary perception of reality, or are there shades of grey here that no one (except the silent centrists) thinks about?<BR/><BR/>Is it then a "natural" (yikes! that word again!) outcome of only two parties in a political system that they eventually become completely polarized and idealogical? If there were a signficant third political party, would that defuse this "polarization paradigm?" Or is it just that the majority of people view things as yes/no and expect thier politicians to be the same? Remember the scorn heaped on Kerry as he took complex positions on complex issues?<BR/><BR/>I feel (subject to evidence to the contrary) that the "right" is more ideological than the "left" right now. But does that mean that to survive, the "left" must become equally ideological? It seems that in a contest between the certainty of ideology and the uncertainty of reality, reality loses at the ballot box. Of course, reality always wins in the end, no matter how hard you wish it otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw: There are 10 types of people in the world, those who get binary and those who don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123705836371768492005-08-10T13:30:00.000-07:002005-08-10T13:30:00.000-07:00" Leftists tend to romanticize tribalism and the r..." Leftists tend to romanticize tribalism and the rightists feudalism."<BR/><BR/>Dang, that's gooood. Can I use it?<BR/><BR/>Very well illustrates that BOTH are nostalgist romantics who have it in for the diamond, and the future.<BR/><BR/>Oh, while I am here, apologies to Margaret Mead. I used her as a strawman for all who have romanticized tribal societies while glossing over their malevolent traits. But Mead was not the worst sinner. After all, she was barely glancing at the chiefs, concentrating her attention on how nice it was that the less-empowered were left alone.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, Polynesia was at one extreme in a peculiar way. Inter-male combat and competition was taken to its ultimate limit... while women and children were allowed to almost completely opt out of the ill effects of war. We see those islands as paradise and they were... for women and children. For men it oscillated wildly. One moment... utter hell. The next, you found yourself a survivor, surrounded by widows. Yikes.<BR/><BR/>No, the real sinners were anthropologists who romanticized groups like the !Kung... who were indeed gentle... MOST of the time. But statistically had murder rates like Detroit on Saturday night.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123705554915926182005-08-10T13:25:00.000-07:002005-08-10T13:25:00.000-07:00David Brin said:"Dang Charles, that was a fine pie...David Brin said:<BR/>"Dang Charles, that was a fine piece of paraphrasing of my position on tribal bullies evolving into feudal bullies."<BR/><BR/>Thanks. Of course, I had already read your article on disputation areas, and thought to put some of your suggestions into practice.<BR/><BR/>In the spirit of CITOKATE, however, I have to point out an error in your post. You attribute two quotes to me that I didn't write:<BR/><BR/>sayeth Big C: " (Feudalism) does not arise "spontaneously" but rather by incremental and deliberate design on the part of the ruling classes."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"I strenuously object to this idea that the enlightenment is somehow "unnatural" to human nature. It is totally natural for rational, tool using beings to attempt to establish a rational society, and to alter the structure of that society as other technologies develop."<BR/><BR/>Both of these quotes came from whiskey1, not me. A relevant quote on this subject from one of my previous posts would be:<BR/><BR/>"Finally, I think David's assertion is that feaudalism [sic] is "more natural" than democracy because feudalism has more immediate benefits for the elites. Behavior 2 [greed] can be easily satisfied for the elites by maintaining control of power and resources. Democracy requires that the elites recognize that behavior 1 [fairness] is worthwhile not only for themselves, but for the rest of the people in the society, and that indulging behavior 2 [greed] for themselves will have long term negative consequences not only for the masses, but for their own children as well.<BR/><BR/>"In essence, I think it is "natural" to want equality and fairness for yourself and your own group, but it is not "natural" to want equality for other groups, if there's a perception that they are competing with your group for resources. The idea that fairness and equality should be for everyone, not just yourself or your own group, is directly counter to behavior 2 [greed].<BR/><BR/>"This is why I think David sees the Enlightenment as so special and unusual. And I'd tend to agree with him."<BR/><BR/>Just setting the record straight. ;)<BR/><BR/>CharlesBig Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475844932543383723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123704737524489572005-08-10T13:12:00.000-07:002005-08-10T13:12:00.000-07:00Following up on Charles' excellent posts:This whol...Following up on Charles' excellent posts:<BR/><BR/>This whole tribalism/feudalism thing really is more a "debate" over terminology rather than of issues. Much of what follows has already been said (in some cases parenthetically) by David, Whiskey1, Charles or others, but it may be worth summing up this way:<BR/><BR/><B>The human condition</B> — hell, the condition of almost every species — is basically hierarchical. We're all the descendants of the best competitors (Neal Stephenson's "stupendous badasses" from <I>Cryptonomicon</I>, if I can steal from another SF author here), and even where human societies use cooperation, in many cases they do it to better compete with another society. I'd imagine every tribe, no matter how peaceful or how egalitarian in its distribution of resources, has its "alpha," "beta," "gamma," etc., members.<BR/><BR/><B>Tribalism</B> seems to be the natural state of affairs when (1) the population is small; (2) the resources are, too; and (3) there aren't any prospects for change and/or growth (technology, discovery of new territory, etc.) The most egalitarian and least hierarchical tribes are probably the ones that are basically one big intermarried family — no one gets really shafted because we tend to shelter and cooperate with relatives more than with strangers. But add different families/factions, or more resources than are needed to satisfy the tribe's vital needs, and the hierarchy becomes more visible.<BR/><BR/><B>Feudalism</B> comes about when a population has grown/merged beyond the tribal level, and there are excess resources (including the "human resources") to be controlled. Everybody's dead on here — feudalism is a technology, just like agriculture or weapons development — but I'd argue that this system is just how tribalism <I>expresses itself</I> when the society has acquired other technologies and outgrown the tribe as its basic unit; i.e., feudalism is tribalism writ large, with the inequities and other consequences similarly magnified. (Though there have been less-hierarchical feudal systems — at least ones where those on the bottom had better access to those on top — just as there have been less-hierarchical tribes.)<BR/><BR/><B>Modern democracy</B> (i.e., post-Greek) is actually the product of an arms race, or so I've heard it argued. (Sorry, it was long ago, and I can't remember the source.) Originally, in feudal Europe, only the nobles had the weapons, and only the nobles went to war. If the peasants got into it at all, it was generally as "cannon fodder" ("Here, take this club and go whack those guys over there with the broadswords!") when the situation got more desperate. But eventually, more warring cultures started regularly using — and fully arming — their masses ... and that's when the elitist "system of thought" had to become the primary tool for control. (And without the imbalance of weaponry to back it up, it didn't seem to last all that long, either, so I'm leaning more toward Charles' interpretation than Whiskey1's here.)<BR/><BR/>I think what I'm trying to get at is that the whole tribalism/feudalism debate is a sand trap comparable to the left/right paradigm that David's been spending months railing against. (The analogy holds up, too: Leftists tend to romanticize tribalism and the rightists feudalism. Sheri Tepper vs. Poul Anderson, to name two SFers whose politics eventually left me cold.)<BR/><BR/>And the reason we've all been drawn to this blog (including heretofore lurkers like me) is the concept of getting <I>out</I> of sand traps. Forget the nomenclature; the only thing worth arguing over is how do we stop this slide back toward a "whoever dies with the most toys wins" world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123702962218530072005-08-10T12:42:00.000-07:002005-08-10T12:42:00.000-07:00This discussion has a lot of potential which will...This discussion has a lot of potential which will be squandered if it devolves into personal invective. Calling someone a liar when, at most, the evidence suggests misunderstanding leading to misinterpretation, is not useful.<BR/><BR/>Whatever one might make of the tone of Dr. Brin's remarks, he specifically did not attack anyone's personal integrity. To respond to his view, however impolitic you find his expression, with an assault on his character is neither productive nor intellectually honest.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think an apology is in order.<BR/><BR/>That said, I was troubled by portions of Dr. Brin's comments as well. I wasn't aware that Margaret Mead's work had been so thoroughly discredited. I presume that this claim is based on the work of Derek Freeman, who has published two books attacking Mead and, by way of this, the entire school of cultural relativist thought. <BR/><BR/>Whatever the merits or demerits of Freeman's criticism, it is innaccurate to suggest that he has carried the day in the debate. His polemics against Mead, Boas and others have, in turn , been criticized for ignoring his own insistence on rigorous scientific method, relying on essentially ad hominen psychological constructions and even misrepresenting the views of both Mead and researchers who succeeded her in Somoa. An interesting overview of these issues can be found here:<BR/> http://pages.slc.edu/%7Ecfraver/directory/frameset.htm <BR/><BR/>A small taste from the article:<BR/><BR/>"Mead asserted that if adolescence was complicated in one place but uncomplicated in another, the troubles of adolescence could not be explained by biological factors. She said, “in anthropology, you only have to show once that it is possible for a culture to make, say, a period of life easy, where it is hard everywhere else, to have made your point”.[34] Another way of explaining this same issue was described by a reviewer in the New York Times. This article said that the question was whether “the difficulties of the transition from childhood to adult life” were “due to adolescence itself, and, therefore, universal and unavoidable” or “the result of the impact between developing youth and a civilization which at once restrains and complicates”.[35] This question shows that Mead assumed humans to be equal biologically, a stance that Freeman does not share..."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how the adjective "romantic" can be applied to the view described above. Whatever distortions and exagerations cultural relativism may fall prey to , it is no more, and indeed far less subject to deterministic fallacies than other theories. <BR/><BR/>For example, early observations of tribal societies by Europeans in North America insisted on imposing cultural paradigms having little to do with the societies in question. Hence the discriptions of tribal war leaders as "Kings" in the European mode and the myth of the "indian princess". That none of these tribal societies possessed anything like the European conception aristocracy and certainly no notion of monarchical absolutism was no bar to suppositions of those produced by a culture that held Monarchism to be the divinely determined model of human society.<BR/><BR/>In the present day, Sociobiologists of Freeman's stripe have launched attacks on cultural relativism by arguing that it promotes a doctrine of the human being as infinitely malleable, subject only to acculturation. Against this, they posit themselves as defenders of scientific rigor in establishing the fixed biological nature of human behavior.<BR/><BR/>This stance is more than a little disingenuous. Living as we do in a period of revolution in the field of genetic manipulation, arguing for the essentially biological nature of human behavior is hardly to argue against its infinite malleability. As Dr. Brin's earlier reference to "Brave New World" illustrates, ideas of biological determinism did not necessarily conflict with the notion of humans as wet clay even prior to the identification of DNA.<BR/><BR/>At this point in history, the debate over nature versus nurture isn't about the fixed or unfixed nature of human behavior. It is a debate over which methodology is a more effective method of shaping human behavior. <BR/><BR/>I don't pretend to know the answer to this question. I do have a few observations though. One is that you will find bad science on both sides. Secondly, of the two models one implies that we can change the quality of human behavior by altering the cultural conditions in which it operates, opening the door for broad participation in the transformation of humanity as a social organism. The other places the power to alter the conditions of human existence in the hands of a technocratic elite. This does not bear on the factual validity of either claim but it does have profound implications for anyone who has regard for individual liberty.<BR/> <BR/>Can we compare the excesses committed on either side with an eye towards assessing their relative negative impact? If so, can we then make a determination as to which has the more destructive record?<BR/><BR/>When I was studying anthropology I never heard anyone make the argument that biology had no impact whatever on human behavior or culture. The dominant view was that biological factors had been over emphasized in the service of cultural prejudices. That was hard to argue with, considering that white supremacy was practically an article of faith in western culture up until WWII. A doctrine so corrupting in its influence that it was more respectable to argue that the ruins of Great Zimbabwe in southern Africa were built by Solomon and Sheba than to suggest they were the handiwork of the native Shona people. If we compare this sort of reasoning to that of cultural relativists it seems odd, not to mention unjust, to describe the latter as being the romantic liars.<BR/> <BR/>A final thought. If it is true that half the data we possess concerning tribal societies comes from a single valley in New Guinea, that would seem an excellent argument for not over generalizing from the data.<BR/><BR/>A brief word on terminology. While I am aware that language, like all human constructs, is a fluid commodity, one must have accepted working definitions in order to have fruitful discussion. For good or ill, feudalism has a highly specific meaning. If we are going to depart from that meaning, it needs to be made clear in what fashion the word is being used. For myself, I am sceptical whenever I see the term applied outside of Medieval Europe, although there are certainly parallels with other cultures during specific periods.W.B. Reeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11501942097348818813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123702556031791232005-08-10T12:35:00.000-07:002005-08-10T12:35:00.000-07:00Dang Charles, that was a fine piece of paraphrasin...Dang Charles, that was a fine piece of paraphrasing of my position on tribal bullies evolving into feudal bullies.<BR/><BR/>Sometime someone should remind me to do a riff on <I>paraphrasing</I>, which is one of the key skills that ought to be taught to all citizens... and is not. (Big C provides an example, below.) It is THE important argumentation skill and the great credibility builder, if you really want to deconstruct an opponent's position in a fair and modern way. For those who don't want to wait, see: http://www.davidbrin.com/disputationarticle1.html<BR/><BR/>Tue, hello! I understand your point about giving the Principle Of Change the benefit of the doubt. But I do not agree that the Left tries to be scientific. You are missing the point of this discussion, because in fact, the Left is just as polluted with anti-scientific dogmatists as the Right is, today. The chief difference is that the Left has far less power. <BR/><BR/>You say: <I>"The purpose of the left have traditionally been to try to make a science out of cultural development, and this has not been entirely successful." </I> I agree with that last part. But again, I urge you to consider that what you call "the left" is actually two entirely different movements, jumbled together. <BR/><BR/>One is a wing of the enlightenment that practically wants to explore and negotiate human improvement - and just happens to emphasize methods that utilize tools of the state. The other is a poxy band of dogmatists and would-be ideological tyrants who don't give a damn about pragmatism, only stoking their own indignation. You hint at this when you say: "So the true left must naturally reject all kinds of dogma."<BR/><BR/>That's fine. But I say it is too late to salvage the word "left". Leave it to the dogmatists. Let's come up with new terms.<BR/><BR/>Whiskey, I meant no insult. But you must adapt; the onus is on you. When you come to a man's blog, you come as a guest. Same as to a house. Yes, you hope your host will follow all normal rules of politeness. But throughout human history, guests have been under obligation to learn the house rules and learn the host's quirks. And above all, give the host benefit of the doubt instead of leaping to worst interpretatiuons. <BR/><BR/>HOUSE RULE: Here, we do NOT leap top assume that the other guy meant insult. If you are going to be prickly, please do not do so on my turf. We are throwing a lot of ideas around here. I meant nothing personally. If I misspoke your position SAY SO, paraphrase and clarify, and don't waste our time with anger.<BR/><BR/>As to your 6 step syllogism-logic, it is in the finest tradition of Plato... leading from "we can assume that" to another... and (sorry) fallacious. At least three of your steps are not assumable at all.. Especially the outrageous #6.<BR/><BR/>To compare the bludgeon of feudalism as a "technology" to the incredible compexity of democracy is like comparing a club to a space shuttle. Both are tools... and this makes the word useless in syllogism.<BR/><BR/>sayeth Big C: " (Feudalism) does not arise "spontaneously" but rather by incremental and deliberate design on the part of the ruling classes."<BR/><BR/>Argh! SO? It happened EVERYWHERE that metal and farms made it possible. <BR/><BR/>I see our problem. Chewing relentlessly over the word "natural" is pointless. I withdraw "natural"! Replace it with "tediously predictable and nearly automatic, arising out of natural drives in human nature that propel gangs of bullies to exploit opportunities and deny them to others." Okay?<BR/><BR/>Please go see my paper on "altruism" that I cited above. You'll find a lot of useful stuff about quid-pro-quo in nature.<BR/><BR/>"I strenuously object to this idea that the enlightenment is somehow "unnatural" to human nature. It is totally natural for rational, tool using beings to attempt to establish a rational society, and to alter the structure of that society as other technologies develop."<BR/><BR/> I am ready to give up. I keep asking for one other example and I am given none. Yet the enlightenment is natural? Can you not see that you are arguing PAST my point, instead of bothering to notice it?<BR/><BR/>By the way, I never associated our version of the Enlightenment with "rationality". That is the French side. Obsessed with platonic syllogisms and if-then voodoo. The <BR/><BR/>Anglo-American enlightenment has been about PRAGMATIC methods to PREVENT tribal-feudal bullying. Rationality has little to do with it. "Reason" is just another form of incantation.<BR/><BR/>Having said all that, let me thank Big C for trying to paraphrase.<BR/><BR/>Whiskey, I appreciate that you said: "To simplify further: There is only one social structure that can contain almost exclusively winners, and that is the diamond shaped society. Since all chimpanzees naturally desire to be winners, more chimpanzees will be fulfilled in a diamond than in a pyramid. Diamond shaped societies are therefore a really great idea, and we should support them."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, that is the chief point I was trying to make! Nevertheless, did you not say that a diamond shape social order is natural? It sure seemed that way to me. And if you did say this, I am still awaiting a single historical example other than our own.<BR/><BR/>I contend that our experiment that has achieved this wonder is extremely difficult, unnatural and desperately frail. Countless forces are gathering, obeying their ancient instincts to try to hammer the diamond into more traditional shapes.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123695582287597842005-08-10T10:39:00.000-07:002005-08-10T10:39:00.000-07:00I believe what whiskey1 is trying to say is that a...I believe what whiskey1 is trying to say is that any value system based on the continuity of the species (or, for example, the number of goats in South Carolina) has a measurable or at least observable quantity associated with it. In other words, once good/evil are defined, they can be determined or at least approximated in any given situation. A value system based on the precepts of god, however, cannot be so measured, as there is no way to know what those precepts happen to be, or if they even exist. Is this right? If so, I believe you are attacking a straw man, or perhaps just not making clear what your argument is meant to show. It should be clear that having determined a set of precepts (do not kill, do not steal, etc.) value systems may be built. You seem to be saying that the determination of these precepts is the issue, that if the determination is included in the 'rational basis' for a value system then it is no longer rational. Have I understood you or just confused the issue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1123682392179584502005-08-10T06:59:00.000-07:002005-08-10T06:59:00.000-07:00whiskey1:For the most part I agree with your three...whiskey1:<BR/>For the most part I agree with your three points. The pyramid structure does not directly follow from humans forming social groups and tribes, but rather is the result of the combination of agriculture and metallurgy enabling the elites to satisfy their "natural" human propensity for greed by dominating and surpressing the other "natural" human propensity for demanding fair treatment in the rest of the population.<BR/><BR/>"However, I would certainly agree that having some kind of idyllic viewpoint of all tribes is just as innacurate, and I'm not advocating that either. Simply that there have been, previous to the enlightenment, bands and even nations of humans that tried other means of organization than a pyramid."<BR/><BR/>Agreed. I think the point David was making was that ever since humans have developed agriculture and metallurgy, the feudal pyramid has dominated in those societies.<BR/><BR/>This ties into a point Jared Diamond makes about the effect agriculture had on human society. There was a documentary on PBS called <A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/" REL="nofollow">"Guns, Germs, and Steel"</A> based on his book of the same name that talks about this. Here's a link to <A HREF="http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html" REL="nofollow">one of his papers</A> and I also put a <A HREF="http://bigcthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/07/agriculture-worst-mistake-in-human.html" REL="nofollow">response to it</A> on my blog.<BR/><BR/>In closing, I think we can all agree on one of your earlier points:<BR/>"To simplify further: There is only one social structure that can contain almost exclusively winners, and that is the diamond shaped society. Since all chimpanzees naturally desire to be winners, more chimpanzees will be fulfilled in a diamond than in a pyramid. Diamond shaped societies are therefore a really great idea, and we should support them."<BR/><BR/>Despite our disagreements, as modernists we should all have the same goal of encouraging the success and growth of the diamond-shaped society for everyone on the planet.<BR/><BR/>Can we get 2 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, 1 billion Africans, and 500 million Latin Americans to the middle class lifestyle that Americans currently enjoy? Can we do this without collapsing the world economy and destroying the environment? Can we do this without sending the US and Europe into poverty? I don't know, but I think it's worth trying, and I don't think it's an impossible goal. It requires a whole heck of a lot of hard work and ingenuity though, to put it mildly.<BR/><BR/>CharlesBig Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475844932543383723noreply@blogger.com